War is peace, freedom is slavery, etc
Nov 16 2007 00:36
#32
Jack wrote:
A good number of us dislike the term and prefer revolutionary unionist.
I was under the impression that SolFed was an anarcho-syndicalist group, which would make you syndicalists, surely?
Not that it's particularly important, I just thought it was a bit of an odd thing to take issue with, considering.
Nov 16 2007 09:29
#33
Fancy assuming a member of a syndicalist organisation was a syndicalist rather than just reading his mind.
Christ you're lazy madas.
Nov 16 2007 09:37
#34
Jack wrote:
madashell wrote:
Weren't you in SolFed before you went abroad?A good number of us dislike the term and prefer revolutionary unionist.
Yeah fuckwits...
anyway a member of sol fed earlier...
Nov 16 2007 10:06
#35
madashell wrote:
Jack wrote:
A good number of us dislike the term and prefer revolutionary unionist.I was under the impression that SolFed was an anarcho-syndicalist group, which would make you syndicalists, surely?
Not that it's particularly important, I just thought it was a bit of an odd thing to take issue with, considering.
Tacks wrote:
Fancy assuming a member of a syndicalist organisation was a syndicalist rather than just reading his mind.Christ you're lazy madas.
i think jack's making a subtle dig at the wobblies who say they're revolutionary unionists, but not syndicalists
Nov 16 2007 10:07
#36
little_brother wrote:
Propaganda is vital, exposing government and media bullshit, as it's so easy to get taken in.
For example, even official figures tell you that only 2% of total benefits budget is used for for people who are unemployed. http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn13.pdf
Current New Deal payments are already miniscule (0.06%) so taxpayers cost for young people who aren't working is irrelevant (even if I gave a shit about the cost, which I don't). This issue is all about control.
they're really interesting figures
I think I'd add that alongside control, it's also about the government's attempt to legitimate itself by seeming to be tackling 'bad things' like unemployment, albeit through even worse things like compulsory voluntary labour.
Nov 17 2007 16:23
#37
Yes. We can use figures like these to build a confident argument (propaganda) against government attacks on these easy targets, based on facts rather than opinion only.
Nov 18 2007 12:17
#38
Tacks wrote:
I have a deep hatred of charities since i read about the actual origins of charities in the uk, the Charity Comission for instance.
got any links or sources for that... i would be interested to read further
Nov 19 2007 13:57
#39
Here's a short article.
The History of UK Charity:
http://pnnonline.org/article.php?sid=2398
Nov 19 2007 14:17
#40
gunasara wrote:
Tacks wrote:
I have a deep hatred of charities since i read about the actual origins of charities in the uk, the Charity Comission for instance.got any links or sources for that... i would be interested to read further
whatever my a level text book was called 
if i remember correctly the opening charter of the Charities Commission itself makes some very interesting reading.
Nov 19 2007 14:20
#41
In case this wasn't clear before, determined action against charities by the Groundswell network started with opposition to 'Project Work' which was the Tory precursor to Labour's New Deal.
As it was 1996/7, there is not a lot on the internet reporting this but in Bristol charity shop windows got stencilled with the words: THIS CHARITY USES SLAVE LABOUR. http://www.counterinfo.org.uk/archive/ci50iv.txt
In Brighton, as in Nottingham, charities and voluntary sector providers were taken to task in a variety of ways, including pickets/leafleting shops:
http://www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/schnews.html
and another source reported occupations in Brighton that included a local church which had claimed that claimants needed some incentive to get out of bed in the morning - this action ended in a fight with the cops.
Nov 19 2007 15:23
#42
There's another angle to this too...
How will the state manage the process of tracking and controlling those who fall into the NEET (not in employment, education or training) category who are the main target for all of this?
One of the organisations involved in 'multi-agency' data gathering for purpose of dealing with the NEETs is Connexions: http://www.connexions.gov.uk/partnerships/publications/connexpubs/index.cfm?Fuseaction=DocumentDetails&DocumentID=392
Connexions is now intended to operate as a set of 47 'Connexions partnerships' with funding that will go directly to each of 150 local authority areas by April 2008.
When Connexions was begun, there was also an associated quasi-voluntary card scheme that was used for enrolling in education and training with various incentives to have one like shopping discounts. This Connexions Card (and the IT systems behind it) was very much seen as a backdoor proto-ID card for young people. Although the card doesn't seem to be in use anymore it seems quite likely that a new workfare/education initiative for 16-18s could be administered through a compulsory card of a similar kind.
Nov 27 2007 13:14
#43
In case anyone is interested in more detail, Labours plans are explained in some detail here (Ed Balls - Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families - is big in Fabian Society):
Balls sets out "biggest education reform for half a century"
http://fabians.org.uk/events/progressivemanifesto-EdBalls-07/speech
One other change to dole is you will go straight on to New Deal at 18 if you are unemployed, rather than 6 months later. So there will be no JSA without taking one of the New Deal 'options'.
Rights and responsibilities...
Nov 27 2007 13:36
#44
in a similar vein, from Brown's CBI speech last night:
Brown wrote:
if the best welfare is no longer the benefits you have today but the skills you gain for tomorrow then the inactive should, wherever possible, be preparing and training to get back into work.So when someone signs on as unemployed, they sign up for a skills review, be given access to skills advice and training if that is what is needed, and this could be taken into account in their benefit entitlement
Brown wrote:
rights and responsibilities will be at the heart of our approach so we will intensify compulsion while at the same time offering new incentives.In return for new rights to training and help to get into work, we will demand more responsibility.
We want lone parents on benefit to be training in preparation for going back to work when their child goes to school. And there will be a more modern regime for new IB claimants which, for the first time, will mean work for those who can, education or training for those with no skills, and treatment for those who need medical help including for mental health problems.
Brown wrote:
we believe that the flexibility you want as employers can be matched over time by more rights to request flexible working.
Nov 27 2007 15:40
#45
Indeed. The agenda is very clear and it's not at all about the size of the welfare bill but about fitting everyone into UK PLC whether they like it or not. The impetus for this is the perceived 'skills gap' in UK (for example in ICT) so not surprising it'll be of interest to CBI. Ed Balls, as economics adviser to Gordon Brown for many years when Brown was chancellor of the exchequer, is central to this thinking. Interesting to see this comes pretty well directly out of Fabian Society which Ed Balls is currently chair of.
Nov 27 2007 15:55
#46
little brother wrote:
The agenda is very clear and it's not at all about the size of the welfare bill but about fitting everyone into UK PLC whether they like it or not
absolutely - closing down on any opportunities for non-work is good in so many ways for the government - easier exploitation/profit-making, easier to discipline the workforce/society, and it also becomes a usefully self-serving form of legitimation - the more people in (crap) jobs, the more the government can draw upon their jealousy of those not in crap jobs to scapegoat non-workers, and promote themselves as the defenders of social justice (i.e. stamping down on benefit cheats).
Nov 27 2007 18:40
#47
Alan Johnson, Secretary of State for Education and Skills until he took over Secretary of State for Health in May, was also a chief architect of this plan: http://www.commonsleader.gov.uk/output/page2026.asp
Summary doc here: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations/downloadableDocs/Raising%20Expectations%20Consultation%20Report.pdf
Chapter 1 is headered, 'A new requirement to participate'.
I note, ex-CPGB Johnson has also been nominated as a candidate for Resistance's "Bastard of the Year" jointly with Patricia Hewitt, by Saii (see AF's thread on this). Ex-CPGB John Reid won last year's...
Love anarchism, hate Socialism.
Propaganda is vital, exposing government and media bullshit, as it's so easy to get taken in.
For example, even official figures tell you that only 2% of total benefits budget is used for for people who are unemployed. http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn13.pdf
Current New Deal payments are already miniscule (0.06%) so taxpayers cost for young people who aren't working is irrelevant (even if I gave a shit about the cost, which I don't). This issue is all about control.